Friday, October 29, 2004

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but the ones that were there Bush failed to Secure!"

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

OK. "The Weapons have left the Building", says John Kerry. At times describing these as WMDs. Which is it? Were there WMDs in Iraq, or weren't there? Does it matter? Not to Kerry. He's been saying all along they were never there. Yet, I read one quote where he called them WMD.

Look at what facts and the truth mean to Kerry. He runs his campaign in a fluid shifting foggy world of Drive By Opionating. The Truth May Be Out There, But He Doesn't Care.

What matters to Kerry is whether or not anything, any soundbite, any bit of unsubstantiated random bit of information, will provide him with a WMD* against Bush. Information is sought and evaluated solely on what potential harm it can cause the President's campaign in these last few days. Truth? Careful evaluation? Bah! Who needs it? Not Kerry, who seems convinced the American Public has a combined IQ even lower than GW, and the memory of a gold fish.

At present it appears very likely that large quantities of these munitions were not there when our troops arrived, having been spirited away by the Russians into Syria (or Libya? does it matter?) a month or more before we got there. These things were tagged by UN inspectors. Why? What were they? The types of detonators used to ram two pieces of weapons grade fissionable materials together, creating a nuclear reaction?

Well, I'm going to say that is exactly what they were. I don't need proof. If a man aspiring to be President of the United States of America won't verify something before presenting it to the American People as fact, WHY SHOULD I?

Anyway, if I am proved to be wrong, I'll just change my mind, and explain that I was misquoted, and that my readership failed to understand nuance, or parody, or irony, or whatever the hell else pops out of my mouth.

6 comments:

Is this supposed to be ironic, and really an attack against Bush? If so it was too subtle for me. So I will assume that you are serious, but there is a nagging doubt that somebody as smart as you can't fall for such outright distortions as currently being put forth by the Bush campaign. So if you were being sarcastic or ironic I apologize.

If not, if you really are attacking Kerry over this, then you are truly a hypocrite. And you need to recheck your facts. Or perhaps the video of the US Troops at the site, with the high-tech WMD "precursors" intact at the time. The troops didn't know what it was, and weren't informed by the administration that they should secure it. But "America is safer."

Although the UN weapons inspectors had provided this information to us already and we knew exactly what was there and where it was before we invaded. But this administration, that based the invasion on WMD lies, didn't bother to inform the military that they might want to secure the site. Uhh, oops. But "America is safer."

So it isn't Bush's fault if it disappears to SYRIA? How the F does that compute? Are we somehow SAFER if it goes to Syria? But "America is safer."

And in any case the video shows that this is BS. The high-tech explosive was there but the troops didn't know what it was and didn't know it was important. Because the administration apparently didn't think it was. Because there was no plan for political consolidation of our initial military success, despite the warnings of the Army (and editorials from people like me: http://buggieboy.blogspot.com/2004/07/hapless-soldiers-sigh.html#comments) Ooops. But "America is safer."

And any claims that such precursors "prove" Saddam was working on WMDs is stunningly stupid since the UN seals were INTACT, showing that Saddam was NOT using the stuff in violation of the cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions. In short, it was secure and NOT a threat before we invaded, and now it is in the hands of the enemies who are most likely to use, or already have used, it against us. But "America is safer."

But such facts are over the head of Bush supporters who don't choose to live in the "reality-based community." But "America is safer."

Vote Kerry or you will only have yourself to blame for losing this war. Bush is the most incompetent and dangerous (to us) president our republic has ever had. Ever.

Vote Kerry and America truly will be safer. And we will win this war.

And here is a quote from the editorial I wrote in Nov. 02, months before we finally invaded:

"Our military is the best the world has ever seen. Success against the Iraqi military is a certainty, and thus the President’s call for “regime change” is bound to happen if we invade. We need to be certain, however, that such a change would result in a safer world. That is the test for success, not removing Saddam. Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that men don’t ride events, events ride the man. The war could (and probably would) have consequences beyond what most of us can predict now. The eminent military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz cautioned that when preparing for war political leaders should never take the first step until they know their last. If war with Iraq is worth U.S. blood and treasure it is worth establishing and articulating a desired political end and a plan for the political consolidation of our military success. We must not take the first step until we have thought our strategy through to the last step, until we understand all the risks and rewards. This has not been done."

And now, in Oct. 2004, it STILL HAS NOT BEEN DONE. This president is incompetent. Fire him.

Whoah, we're all getting just a bit testy in these final hours, aren't we.

TWD, I am not relying on Bush campaign distortions for anything. I read the latest information that I could find, and rushed it to press, and claimed that it was all true.

Just like Kerry did.

I now post the most recent article that I have found, one that most have historically considered to be a reliable news source, that is, The New York Times. This was printed today, Oct 30: Note, requires registration to view whole article.

If you will read this article carefully, you will note that no one really knows how much of anything was there. The statements of "the satellite photography shows truck in front of the wrong bunker" or words to that effect don't prove anything at all. How much time is represented by that photograph? 1/10,000the of a second? Geez, could the trucks have been moved before or after that photo? Well, obviously, since they are still not there. So, obviously, the photo only demonstrates trucks in the area. Period.

It could have been Circuit City delivering a big screen tv for all we know. The video reportedly showing HMX weapons. Is that what they were? Naturally, if weapons experts say they are, I have to take it at face value. So, how many tons were there? Do you know? Do I? Does anyone? Is there unpublished parts of that video showing a careful cataloging of those crates, including weighing them on a scale?

The video I saw did not show anything in the bunker with the seal. They did not go in that bunker. See the issue? They show a bunker, say 'yes it has munitions', but then they show the bunker with the seal, and they don't open that bunker, and there is no video of the contents of the bunker. So, how much of what is in THAT bunker?

Now, about this being a failing by George Bush and a demonstration of his incompetence... The President of my company did not know, and does not know that there was an egg fight in one of our retail outlets 10 months ago, and that the people involved were terminated for destruction of company property. Yes, yes, yes, eggs are not HMX high explosives. But, especially you guys that have been in the military, why is there a chain of command? Can the general oversee every detail? Can the battalion chief oversee every detail?

So, the point of this article is this: Kerry claims another example of buffoonery by Bush for letting specific tonnage of particular weapons leave certain bunkers.

Yet, he does not know what was there, how much was there, or what the various factions of the men invading Iraq were charged with doing.

HE DOES NOT KNOW.

But he will tell you that he does, and that he could have done better. Whatever. I can say that. I'll say it now.

I would have selected that particular bunker as my primary objective, if I were commander in chief, and the world would be safer now because of me. That's what I would have done, and you can't prove otherwise.The rest of your comments, TWD have to do with salient issues regarding the war, and attacking Bush's handling of the whole Iraq thing. My article doesn't support or attack Bush's handling of the war. In fact, I believe I posted a link to your article on this site, encouraging people to read it.

Frater: We do know this for sure: UN weapons inspectors sealed the HMX in January of '03. We invaded in March of '03. And NOBODY CHECKED THE SITE FOR HMX UNTIL LATE THIS YEAR. Whether the explosives were taken before or after the invasion is immaterial. The incompetence shown by the administration is shown by this: the Army was never told to look for WMD precursors that we knew were there.

So the fact that we didn't even bother to look for it shows that the administration was incompetent. Incredibly incompetent.

Contributors

Ponderances

"Stark staring incredulity is a far more loyal tribute to that truth than a modernist metaphysic that would make it out merely a matter of degree. It were better to rend our robes with a great cry against blasphemy, like Caiaphas in the judgement, or to lay hold of the man as a maniac possessed of devils like the kinsmen and the crowd, rather than to stand stupidly debating fine shades of pantheism in the presence of so catastrophic a claim. There is more of the wisdom that is one with surprise in any simple person, full of the sensitiveness of simplicity, who should expect the grass to wither and the birds to drop dead out of the air, when a strolling carpenter's apprentice said calmly and almost carelessly, like one looking over his shoulder: 'Before Abraham was, I am.'"

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social justice, and religious issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is made available for viewing and reading, etc., without profit to those who are visiting this website and who may have an interest in the included information for their own edification, research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Blog Stats

Exclaimer Disclaimer

The Glob Blog is the Official Blog of The Global Exclaimer. The purpose of The Glob Blog is to address whatever the editor of The Glob happens to be thinking about at the moment. It's secondary purpose is to provide an entertaining thought provoking read. The tone of this blog is pseudo-serious except where plain silly.It may at times, and without warning, become very serious and dogmatic in a Loving Christian Way.At times public figures and events will be discussed and quite probably made fun of and otherwise satirized. Aside from those cases, all other persons, places and things referenced in The Glob are fictional and any resemblance to real persons, whether living, dead, or unborn are coincidental and accidental. So there.